Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

because it couldn't. Aluminum composite the plane was made of would burst into dust right at the point of impact. What else do you expect?

You are blasting another failed 911 truth believer! Don't you 911 truth followers have one single failed claim you can agree on? lol, you are debunked by another 911 truth follower.

This is classic 911 truth, crazy claims, debunking each other, oblivious to the fact they have no evidence, can't do the math, no engineering, no physics. 11 years of failure, on the road to eternal failure fueled by ignorance.

You are blasting another failed 911 truth believer! Don't you 911 truth followers have one single failed claim you can agree on? lol, you are debunked by another 911 truth follower.

This is classic 911 truth, crazy claims, debunking each other, oblivious to the fact they have no evidence, can't do the math, no engineering, no physics. 11 years of failure, on the road to eternal failure fueled by ignorance.

Hey that sounds like I am a failed truther. I'm failure a lot of things but never been a truther

Talk to people about that! not baseless and offensive claims pretending to represent 9/11 truth. No people - one plane? wow.
To the people who read; this guys claims have NOTHING to do with 911 truth which is based in well documented facts. Many of them.
Not baseless and offensive (!) assertions

Where are these well documented facts? All we have are circumstantial evidences and you suddenly come with facts.

So fag packet calculation...
Tensile strength of aluminum 310 Mpa
Density of aluminum 2700 kg/m^3
mass of material in plane if it was all aluminum 30,000 kg (rough estimate if fully loaded plane is 150000kg)
This assumes a cube of aluminum to be approximately 11m^3 if solid aluminum
Dust I'm taking to be 1mm^3

Looks to be about 300GN

Or 300000000000 N

That's quite a lot of force

Taking the impact to be spread out over 0.2 seconds for the planes aluminium to fully compress at 240m/s this gives about 36 MN force for the impact. A factor of about 90000 times too small to break the aluminum present into 1mm^3 dust particles.

Also took worst case for the plane conditions, under estimating mass of plane, tensile strengths of all materials and took best case, over estimating compression in real world scenario and also assuming the wall could withstand the impact and all force went into the dustification. If I took best case for all we would be looking at at least many more times too little force. I even ignored the people and fuel and just took the amount need to dustify only the aluminum. Don't forget they must have been dustified too.

In the beginning of the video they talk about how the exact same floors where the plane 'cookie-cutter impact' happened had been updated for fireproofing. Was it really fireproofing OR was it rigging of explosives?

Why are you asking us? Do your own research.

__________________Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

Notice first how the firefighter sweeps his arm down to indicate the exact timing for when the camera operator should start moving the camera to the left to exactly catch the explosion in the tower. The plane has been edited into the video later on with computer graphics. So both the firefighter here and the camera operator are members of the shadow cabal.

You're making statements that are easily recognizable to be ignorant. So either you're trolling or a disinfo agent.

__________________Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

It was Flt 175, 277,580 pounds at impact, 125,908 kg, going 590 mph, 865 kph, impact energy of 2093 pounds of TNT; do you need that in Joules?

Maybe we should show him the math? Here's the equation for kinetic energy:

KE = ½mv²

That's half the mass in kilograms times the velocity in metres per second squared equals kinetic energy in joules.

American Airlines Flight 11 was a 767-200ER model, which has an empty operating weight of about 82,380 kg. The fuel on board at the time of impact was about 40,000 litres, which has a mass of about 32,160 kg. Adding that to the empty weight of the aircraft gives us 114,540 kg (this ignores the weight of the passengers, crew, and any baggage or cargo, and thus is a conservative estimate). The velocity at impact was about 748 km/h, or 207.8 metres per second. Plugging this into the formula we get:

0.5 * 114,540 * (207.8 * 207.8) = 2,472,437,815 joules.

united Airlines Flight 175 was a 767-200 model, which has an empty operating weight of about 80,130 kg. The fuel on board at the time of the impact was approximately 38,000 litres, which has a mass of about 30,552 kg. Adding that to the empty weight gives us a conservative total mass of roughly 110,682 kg (again, this ignores the weight of the crew, passengers, and any baggage or cargo, and thus is a conservative estimate). The velocity at impact was about 950 km/h. (You have the wrong metric conversion on that, beechnut.) Plugging those values in we get:

0.5 * 110,682 * (263.9 * 263.9) = 3,853,800,347 joules.

The standard conversion factor is that one tonne of TNT is equal to 4,200,000,000 joules. Applying this to our figures for each impact means the first was the equivalent to about 0.589 tonnes of TNT, or 588.7 kg (1,298 lbs), while the second was approximately 0.918 tonnes of TNT, or 917.6 kg (2,023 lbs).

Lastly, let's compare that energy in joules to that delivered by munitions in the U.S. military inventory. A Mk 84 bomb (2,000 lbs/907 kg nominal weight, of which 47% is the high explosives warhead) unleashes roughly 2,164,625,517 joules of energy when detonated. That means the impact of American Airlines 11 was equal to about 1.14 Mk 84 bomb strikes, and United Airlines 175 equal to about 1.78 Mk 84 bombs.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

The white flash visible in the center of the explosion is a time and position marker, not a missile as some truthers mistakingly have said. So this is not some 'editing out' of a real plane in the video. It's the actual event without a computer graphics plane edited in.

Why is that video only 3 seconds?

__________________Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

But I have read statements from Pilots for 9/11 Truth who say that it would be difficult to fly like that. Just the precise tilting of the wings, very similar for both impacts, seems like a hard thing to do at that speed for an inexperienced pilot.

Are you trying actively to look silly?

The tilting of the wings is not similar. The first one flew more or less straight and level. And what is difficult about tilting the wings? A plane has control surfaces for doing that. They are called ailerons. They are needed when you turn the plane.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Which means that there WERE floors where the planes impacted the towers. Which in turn indicates that the 'planes' are computer graphics insertions, because real planes would not glide effortlessly like a laser sword through several floors of concrete and steel.

Of course there were floors. Don't you recon the people working there would have, you know, sort of noticed, if several floors were missing? I don't know if you realize this, but the WTC were not a computer game; they were real life *) buildings, with real life people working in them.

Of course they can't glide effortlessly through. In fact they were completely disintegrated in the process.

Hans

*) 'Real life' is the thing you will find if you venture outside your front door.

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Which means that there WERE floors where the planes impacted the towers. Which in turn indicates that the 'planes' are computer graphics insertions, because real planes would not glide effortlessly like a laser sword through several floors of concrete and steel.

Same thing a soft Pb bullet does when penetrating hardened steel plate.

It always makes me laugh when truthers try to talk in a technical language about the plane's structure. Aluminium composite? What for the wing structure? Nonsense. If you had ever had the experience of working at an aircraft manufacturer as I have (Airbus in Filton, Bristol) you'd know how massive the wing structures are and how solid they are. You'd also know that they are made from a number of different alloys and not a sandwiched aluminium composite in the 757/767.

Your only experience of aluminium alloys is when you buy a can of diet coke. You also parrot truther sites nonsense about hardness without any understanding.

"http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video. Many of the 9/11 videos were released days, or even years later (the original for this one, was released YEARS after September 11 !)
This original in my opinion is a complete fake.Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been authenticated, and were either submitted by ANONYMOUS people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, Such as one video by SCOTT MEYERS computer programmer for the NIST. "

Where in that text does it say editing out of plane?

Psst, Anders: The videos of planes hitting the towers, while dramatic and compelling, are not important evidence that planes hit the towers.

As is obvious, individual videos can be faked, although the sheer number of independent videos and still shots made by countless individual people, including photographers from independent foreign media would be an astronomic challenge.

The important evidence is that the planes were tracked to the area, and did not leave. The important evidence is the thousands of people who watched directly. The important evidence is the remains of planes and passengers recovered on the site.

And the important evidence is, of course, the damage inflicted on the buildings, for which nobody, least of all you, have ever offered an even remotely plausible alternative explanation.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

If you examine the flash more closely, you will see that it's not an editing artifact. Could the flash have been edited in afterwards? Not likely.

Let me get this straight: You claim that a plausible-looking moving plane was edited into dozens of individual videos from multiple sources, all from different angles, compiling into a consistent 3D trajectory and plane image, but a diffuse light spot on the side of a building lasting a couple of frames could not possibly have been faked?

Quote:

For your claim to hold, you need to have the flash to be either edited in or being an artifact of editing and/or video compression. And you need that to be repeated for several camera angles, and for both towers. Good luck with that claim.

No the flash is a real phenomenon.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Of the plane? You are adding 'a plane' by implication when such implication may not be valid. So the original WITH a plane was a fake?

Since the original video did have a plane in it, that appears to be a compelling conclusion.

Quote:

And then that fake was turned into another fake without a plane?!

Well, its silly, but that's what the guy says. I think his point is that when he can edit out the plane, it could just as easily been edited in. (Which incidentally is not quite true; copying surrounding background over an object is far easier than making an edited-in object appear plausible.)

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

But ask yourself: What do YOU think the white dot is? You wrote something about a nose cone earlier. Do you believe the white dot is a part of the nose cone?

The white dot is the explosive release of energy as the nose of the plane, moving at the speed of a revolver bullet, contacts the surface of the building. In the preceeding milliseconds, the pressure-wave normally travelling in front of the plane has built up in the narrowing gap between the two objects. The white spot probably begins already shortly before the actual impact, due to shock-wave condensation effects. Also, window panes may have begun to shatter from the pressure.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.

Slight correction, here: The idea was in fact that a plane could enter the building, crash through a floor, and exit (as wreckage, of course) on the other side, thus transferring as little energy to the building as possible. This basically worked as intended on 911, except that the bigger and faster planes inflicted far more damage on the structure (but it still held), and the amount of fuel on the planes we much higher than calculated (calculations expected a plane coming in for landing at a nearby airport, relatively low on fuel). The increased damage and the resultant fires did the trick.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Admit? Everybody knows the planes entered the buildings. In fact, a considerable portion of them came right out the other side.

Quote:

That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter.

Certainly not. If that was the case, the planes would have come out the other side still largely intact, and the buildings would have come down immidiately.

Quote:

I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact.

Perhaps you are not aware of how the towers were constructed. Think of them a grid pylons of steel frames with platforms inserted and a fairly thin outer cladding. The planes sliced through the cladding (consisting of thin metal plates and glass panes, and impacted the grid members disintegrating against them and severing some of them. During the impact, kinetic energy equivalent to a considerable amount of explosives (calculated numerous times, elsewhere) was released causing extensive secondary damage (imagine the blast from the Phantom jet hitting the concrete block happening inside a building, only far bigger), and finally, the fuel loadblew up in a huge fireball, igniting widespread fires.

Quote:

How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards?

Tell the tale? Could you perhaps point to where one of the planes (or anybody on board it) "tells the tale"?

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Call it what you will, but it weighs well over 100tons. I'd like to see your suggestion for a structure that could keep ot from penetrating when hitting at 500mph. - Just for your information, the Phantom jet you see disintegrating against a solid concrete block only weighs about 15 tons.

Quote:

The frontal part of the plane cut through steel as easily as the section where the engines were. The engines were the only heavy solids of the plane that could go through that wall.

And you state this with which authority? The authority that failed to notice that a considerable portion of your "steel wall" consisted of window panes, perchance?

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

I am no ballistics expert and do not pretend to be however it strikes me that if you fly two very large planes at high speed, while full of air fuel into big buildings, that is going to make one hell of an explosion, and you do not need an equation to prove that.

These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.

See, now you are actually, I assume inadvertently, approaching the enlightment zone. Yes, there was no peceptible deceleration of the aft part of the airplane, while the front part was blasing through the outer parts of the building. Why is that so?

Well, that is exactly the secret of high velocity impacts, and the reason you could, in principle, shoot a wet rage through a steel plate, if you could accelerate it enough:

Even though the objects have a considerable structural strenght, this strenght is based on forces being distributed and dispersed through the structure by elastic deformation of the individual parts.

Take a bamboo stick and large cardboard box. place the box on a table and press the bamboo stick against its side. You can easily push the box with no damage to either part. Now, instead hit the side of the box smartly with the stick (fast enough so you can hear the stick whistle trough the air). It will cut into the cardboard!

How does this happen? Well, the thing is that when the fast object hits, so much energy is applied so quickly that the structure cannot redistribute it fast enough. Instead it breaks or disintegrates.

Look at the film with the Phantom jet impacting the concrete block (just because here we all know exactly what goes on): Now, the F4 Phantom is a very sturdy bird. It can withstand the forces of MACH 2.2, which is somewhat faster than your average rifle bullet. It can also withstand combat maneuvres with a full ordnance load (total over 20 tons). Yet it disintegrates against that concrete block without slowing down, and without buckling of being deformed perceptly.

It really makes sense: Would you really really think the rear half of a jet liner could be stopped, or even slowed down in some 30 yeards, from 500mph?

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.